» Articles » PMID: 8959630

Twin- Versus Single-bag Disconnect Systems: Infection Rates and Cost of Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Overview
Specialty Nephrology
Date 1996 Nov 1
PMID 8959630
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although twin-bag disconnect fluid-transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) have a lower rate of catheter-related infection than single-bag systems, their greater monetary purchase cost has prevented universal adoption. Therefore, a single-center randomized study was performed in 63 adult patients to compare the efficiency and total cost of Freeline Solo (FS, twin-bag) and Basic Y (BY, single-bag) systems. Patients were new to CAPD (N = 39), or had a new CAPD catheter, or had had no episodes of peritonitis or exit-site infection in the previous 12 months (N = 24). Total follow-up was 631 patient months (pt.mon), and 53 patients were still on the trial at its termination. Patients rated FS as easier to use than BY (P < 0.001). Peritonitis occurred on 23 occasions in 12 out of 30 patients using BY, and on seven occasions in five of 33 patients using FS. Time to first infection was less with BY than FS (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0 to 5.3; P < 0.04). Cumulative incidence of peritonitis was 1 per 14.0 pt.mon with BY and 1 per 46.5 pt.mon with FS (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% CI 1.5 to 8.5; P = 0.004). Length of hospitalization for peritonitis or exit-site infection was 98 days in six patients with BY, versus 17 days in two patients with FS. With BY, four catheters were removed because of infection, but none with FS (P < 0.05). With BY, the total cost of infection was $AUD127,079 ($5033 per pt.yr) versus $19,250 ($704 per pt.yr) with FS, which offset the higher purchase cost of FS. The total cost of CAPD was $AUD956 per pt.yr less with FS than BY. In conclusion, the higher purchase cost of the FS twin-bag system is more than offset by savings from its lower incidence of peritonitis.

Citing Articles

ISPD Peritonitis Recommendations: 2016 Update on Prevention and Treatment.

Kam-Tao Li P, Szeto C, Piraino B, de Arteaga J, Fan S, Figueiredo A Perit Dial Int. 2016; 36(5):481-508.

PMID: 27282851 PMC: 5033625. DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2016.00078.


Double bag or Y-set versus standard transfer systems for continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in end-stage kidney disease.

Daly C, Cody J, Khan I, Rabindranath K, Vale L, Wallace S Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; (8):CD003078.

PMID: 25117423 PMC: 6457793. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003078.pub2.


In vitro microbiology studies on a new peritoneal dialysis connector.

Di Bonaventura G, Cerasoli P, Pompilio A, Arrizza F, Di Liberato L, Stingone A Perit Dial Int. 2012; 32(5):552-7.

PMID: 22302771 PMC: 3524869. DOI: 10.3747/pdi.2011.00089.


Non-compliance to the continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis procedure increases the risk of peritonitis.

Mawar S, Gupta S, Mahajan S Int Urol Nephrol. 2011; 44(4):1243-9.

PMID: 22102137 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-011-0079-7.


Predictors of peritonitis in patients on peritoneal dialysis: results of a large, prospective Canadian database.

Nessim S, Bargman J, Austin P, Nisenbaum R, Jassal S Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009; 4(7):1195-200.

PMID: 19406969 PMC: 2709510. DOI: 10.2215/CJN.00910209.